Problems "Mu4 #2

• May 24, 2023 - 23:24

Chromebook/ linux. I5 8gig. mouse entry
In problem #1 I was trying to use the articulations pallette to get a trill sign. Since I could not see what was in the menus, I decided to just move to the master pallette. Clicked on the view in the top menu(fonts are very tiny, so hard to read) the menu dropped down (fonts much bigger in drop down) moved the mouse pointer to master pallette and clicked to open and.... program simply closed. Total shutdown! This problem just needs one note entered anywhere in score to make this happen.
I really want to use MU4, but this is another reason why it is not useful. Can not get any work done. HELP, PLEASE!!


Do not use 4.x if it does not work for you. Wait a few months and then try again. I only use 4.x to look at scores posted on the forum.

In reply to by underquark

You are most likely right. I first tried 3 months ago and would hope things might have changed. Espically since others seem to be using MU4 with little or no problems. I am concerned without mentioning these issues nothing may change for me. And I do wish to try and use 4. Thanks for what may turn out to be the case!

In reply to by underquark

I don't think this is very helpful. We can't fix problems that no one reports. it's important to try to get to the bottom of any problem that might otherwise prevent you from effectively using MuseScore 4- simply waiting isn't going to solve the problem.

Is there a specific problem that is preventing you from using MuseScore 4?

Are you saying the crash happens just moving you mouse into the master palette, not even clicking on anything? I'm not aware of any issue like that being reported, so it must be something unique to your system, or perhaps your score. Although it's more likely to be related to your system, let's first start bvy trying to rule out the score. Please attach it and give precise steps to reproduce the issue.

In reply to by Marc Sabatella

Sorry you are not understanding. As I said, I move the pointer to master pallette item in the view menu. Click on master pallette and complete shut down. There is one note in the score. I am Not working in the score. I am Trying to access a function of the program! You have precise steps to what I did. You can look at MU4 problem #4 for another version. In neither of these issues am I working with the score, just trying to access a function of the program. If you can tell me how my system is picking and choosing these issues I would like to know. Espically since previous versions MU2,3 worked fine on this very system. If there is new coding for MU4 that is not my system at fault.

In reply to by R. L. F.

I understand that perfectly. i'm saying you are literally the only user out of millions to report it. So while it may well indeed be a bug in MU4, it is a bug that is only happening on your system, so we need to understand more about what makes your situation so unique that your system is the only one of millions to trigger the bug in MU4.

That is why the first step is for you to attach your score and precise steps to reproduce the problem so we can see if it's something about your score or about your operating system. It's probably the latter, but it will be important to first rule out the former before asking you to do a lot of complicated debugging work to sort out whatever else might be going on. So let's rule out the easy thing - a corrupt score that triggers a problem in the master palette - before worrying about hard things. So please,\ simply post your score and steps to reproduce the problem, that will be the single most important thing you could possibly do right now to help. We want to help you, and this is the first step you can take in allowing us to do so. It's dead simple and takes just seconds.

If that does, as I suspect, show the unique aspect of your system is something about your operating system and not about the score, then we try harder things.

In reply to by Marc Sabatella

Sorry, you say you understand, but then you write something that tells me you do not. I am not 'in' the master pallette. I am simply trying to select it. In view I am pointing 'at' master pallette word and when I click to open....all gone. Back to my wallpaper in chrome. And this is not a crash as I know from MU3, when I reopen MU4 it tells me it I want to reopen. Which I chose no, I am at recent scores, new score and No strange named other score from where I just was.
Now, I have made you a score for test. I have added about everything you see after I left new score wizard. Everthing worked as expected. I added one 1/4 note (semi-quarver...whatever it is called) Fine so far. I want to add a trill. Since the menus in the pallette section are invisible or jumbled I just move up to view. Click on view menu drop down shows master pallette name which is where I want to go next. Hover over name click....gone. Back to wallpaper in chrome. This is as simple and as precise as I can make it. I made a new score to see that this happens in each I might make.
Now we tried this once before and even though my end said there was an attachment, you said there was nothing on your end. So here goes nothing. It says the file is there(?)

Attachment Size
Untitled score.mscz 14.09 KB

In reply to by R. L. F.

When I said the problem is "in" the master palette, I mean, in the code that controls the master palette. That much seems clear at this point.

And thanks for the score; we can now confirm the problem is not triggered by your score since it doesn't happen for me.

So, it must be something unique to your specific Chromebook, since it works perfectly for thousands of other Chromebooks. The next step will be to figure out what is different from your Chromebook from all others.

Three things, then, to try next:

1) Uninstall and reinstall both MuseScore 3 & 4 as I described
2) If the problem persists, run Help / Revert to factory settings
3) If the problem still persists, then tell me what you see if you run the following in a terminal window:


(use copy/paste to copy the output here)

In reply to by Marc Sabatella

Thanks for help. Sorry, I do not have time now. I will say I have deleted and reloaded both Mu3&4 at least two times each and I think 4 may have been once or twice more. As I said, I was having problems with both 3 & 4 together. Admittedly , I am probably saying things different than what you expect. I had MU3 installed on the shelf. I then loaded MU4 and when I installed it ,it was also on the shelf. Opened 4 and tried to use it...with the results I have been explaining. Since it was not working I went back to MU3. To my disdain, when I clicked on the shelf icon nothing happened. MU4 still would load, but not 3. I had to delete anything MU3 from files and then redownload MU3. Used your app to get things loaded(many times...worked well) and then installed MU3 again. Icon on the shelf. It opened and was working...whew! Now when I tried MU4 icon, nothing. They would both not reside on the shelf. This went back and forth many times as I tried other versions of MU4 to see if I had the wrong one. Same results each time. So, for deleting and reloading MU3& 4...been there did that. NO difference!
As to factory reset, that bothers me. When I have some time free I will look into it further, but what I think I remember happens....not interested!
Did a hostnamectl. Sorry, I can copy the results, have no paste to add them anywhere. Heres what it says:
hostname: penguin icon name: computer-container chassis: container Machin id; (long #)
Boot id: (long #) virtualzation: 1xc OS: debian GNU/linux 11 (bullseye) kernel: linux 5.15.103- (on and on) Arch:x86-64
I do think the conflict may be the linux version. I have read in multiple sites it is not a full version of linux, so everything may not work. I know things like paste just do not show up or work in linux now, that functioned in 'beata' vers.
I am also concerned about all those 'millions' who are having no issues. So I have to ask when you tried what I sent before are you using an intel i5 chip in your chromebook. If we are not trying apples to apples I am not sure it is a real comparison. How many of those millions have a i5 chromebook? Since we all get the same updates pushed to are systems I do not see where the problem could occur there. I have updated/graded multiple times to see if that might change something. But nothing. Hope this gives you a little bit to think about. Thanks again for your help. Will get back!

In reply to by R. L. F.

OK, well as always, when you're ready for us to help, just let us know!

To be clear: MuseScore 4 definitely runs beautifully on Chromebooks - I have it running on four of them myself and thousands of others do as well. The version of Linux used on Chromebooks is a little unusual due to how it needs to interact with ChromeOS, but it is completely sufficient for running MuseScore. Also, all Intel-based Chromebooks are identical as far as MuseScore is concerned, but for the record, yes, the Chromebook I'm using at this very moment is an i5. Only ARM-based Chromebooks are not supported directly but even there is a special build that works on those too.

The problems you are describing are not normal and can almost be certainly solved when you're willing to take the necessary steps. BTW, factory reset is an important step in solving problems, not sure what you'd be afraid of, but whatever it is, we can help with that too when you're ready.

In reply to by Marc Sabatella

Marc Thanks for the thoughts, as always.
I took time to review what I remembered about factory reset. It was as I thought. I checked multiple sites ( 9-10) about factory reset and all said the same thing. It was for a problem with the chromebook: will not start, blank screen, etc. or wiping someones account before/after resale. Not one ever said anything about fixing a software issue with a program that was rewritten and now does not totally function on your system. If you see something of a hardware issue in the hostnamectl you had me run, I would be interested in looking into it. ( I ran a diagnostic of my system and everything is functioning properly) Otherwise, lets try this or now this or maybe this hoping one fixes the issue does not interest me at all. Since I am apparently the only one in the world that is bothered with these issues, it is only me that will be affected by not playing with it further. As much as I want to try Mu4, I am not interested in using more time and effort to guess a way to (maybe) a fix.

I tried to make a video of the screen to show some of the program running, good and bad. Unfortunately, the extension is not accepted by the 'choose a file' below. As for MU3& 4 together, yes they both work on the system, but I can not have both on the shelf together for easy access. The last one loaded works, the other will not open.

So, Marc thanks as always for your imput. It is very beneficial. As'underquark' said, "Mu4 is not ready for you" is true and I fear may always be so. I shall wait till later in the year and see if things might be different.

In reply to by R. L. F.

I think it is incorrect to assume MU4 is not ready for you, but you will indeed need to find the time to take the steps I am suggesting. So once more, let us know when you're ready for us to help, and we stand ready to assist!

But for the record, regarding factory reset - I'm not talking about resetting your Chromebook, just MuseScore! Just go to Help / Revert to factory settings from within MuseScore 4. Nothing else whatsoever will be affected - just MuseScore 4. Not even MuseScore 3. Just MuseScore 4.

If you want someone to watch a video, post it to YouTube and then put a link here. But I'm not sure what that will accomplish. I have listed the steps that will actually help; when you're ready to try them, just let us know!

In reply to by Marc Sabatella

Sorry, I did not understand. The only factory reset I could think of was my chromebook, obviously. I would not have thought of reseting a program you had just loaded. I did the reset and things appear to be working! (let you all know if I experience anything too unusual) The pallette fonts seem to be even slightly smaller, but once I memorize where items I regularly use are located I will be able to work at a reasonable pace. (put me down for a size adjustment box for the program fonts, as well as the one for score window fonts!) When I put my display at lowest resolution the fonts are slightly better, but then I need to adjust the score window percentage and all my chromebook apps are way too large and fuzzy. It becomes a back and forth all the time. Thanks for the help. Great as always. I shall now give things a go! May even try to load the sounds if I can figure that out.

In reply to by R. L. F.

Glad to hear it! Regarding font size - there are controls for this, although the best way to do it is very system-specific. If you set MuseScore full-screen post a screenshot of your entire window and tell us the size of your display (eg, 13") we can better judge what is going on and which settings are best to fiddle with.

In reply to by Marc Sabatella

Sorry, Marc. I do not have any way to post a screen shot and I probably do not want to make that effort. I know how to post to 'choose a file' below and that's as far as I wish to go. My screen is 13 in as a lot of chromebooks. I am sorry that the new UI does not seem to enjoy my system. Now that MU 4 is working I can tell that All the menu fonts ( top & pallette)are small(tiny). I am guessing 5-6 pt. I think when I click on a menu item most of the drop downs are in a slightly larger font size.(7-8 pt.) Thanks again for the thought, but it is more work than I wish to get involved with now. Still, put me down for a size window for program fonts. Then I know/see what I would be doing. :)

In reply to by R. L. F.

Actually, it's very easy to take screenshots on a Chromebook - see The reason that would be important is so we can see which specific elements are out of proportion - palette titles, palette items, menu titles, menu contents, toolbars, the score itself, etc. That will help us tell you which specific settings you need to fix it.

From your description, though, Most likely, the fix will involve setting an environment variable called QT_SCALE_FACTOR to a value that says how much bigger you want things - like say, 1.5.

Should you decide you wish to give it a shot, try downloading the file attached to this comment into your Linux files folder, but remove the ".txt" from the name while saving it. Then, from a terminal window, type:

sudo cp 90-scale-factor.conf /etc/environment.d

Then shut down Linux and restart it (or reboot your Chromebook). This will definitely make some things bigger. Whether it's the right things or not depends on what exactly is going wrong.

If it's bigger but not big enough, or if it's too big, you can edit that file to change the 1.5 to something else, using whatever tool you'd normally use to edit files (I use a Chrome app called "Caret" mostly). Then run the above command again, and restart Linux again.


sudo rm /etc/environment.d/90-qt-scale-factor.conf

to get rid of that and go back to how things were (again after a restart of Linux)

Attachment Size
90-qt-scale-factor.conf_.txt 20 bytes

In reply to by Marc Sabatella

There are so many reasons why I do not wish to proceed. Screenshot is the least of which. Posting, guessing which way up/down, where am I coming to get back, editing which I never do, what will this do to other apps...espically MU3...ON AND ON. This last maybe the most important. I do not want to mess up the look of MU3. MU4 is working, but I am already running into other issues with it. An annoying note placement issue is bothersome and I seem to have problems accessing voice 2, probably me but not sure yet. Clicking out of a measure highlight does and doesn't happen, highlighting a measure to then hit space bar to play only works a specific way.(not how it was MU3) Just little annoying issues. I am not interested in playing guessing games to see IF things might be fixed. That is why I ask for a size adjustment box for program fonts. I know what to do, where to go and how to get back. I also know it won't happen for just small numbers needing it. I will continue to lower my display resolution to its lowest setting.(and easily reset) All things are slightly larger, including score window, but percentage window let's me easily change that to what is best.

As to what things are out of proportion, open MU4 'x' out start menu so score window is blank. 'Everything' you see is Tiny. All the menus above the score window, the pallette and other menus on the side of score window and the few items along the bottom of the window. All the fonts are tiny, some barely readable. (bottom items, very top menu...file, edit, view, etc. barely) The drop downs from any of these menu items are also tiny, though possibly 1 pt larger. Hard to tell when you are down in the 4,5,6 pt. range. This is why I say program fonts for a size window. They all need to be adjusted. Yes, some would probably be OK if not as large as others, only looking would tell.
So Marc, thanks again for the suggestions, I'm just not interested in getting in that deep. If I see something unusual I am glad to mention it. Not so much for guessing how to fix it. I will be posting the placement issue soon to see if it's just me. As always, thanks again for your comments/suggestions they are a great guide.

In reply to by R. L. F.

There are adjustments, and I'm happy to help you make them, but that's why I was asking for a screenshot, which would have taken much less time than posting all that :-).

If you're still interested in help and don't mind that I have to guess without a screenshot, I can make additional guesses - try turning up font sizes in Edit / Preferences / Appearance and also Edit / Preferences / Advanced (the "paletteScale" setting). Ifg you're not interested in help, though, no need to respond further.

In reply to by Marc Sabatella

Here is a screenshot, if it is really there. On my side it says yes!? I opened a pallette menu to see the drop down. You mentioned this, but I did not think you could open anything in a screenshot. I will be most interested in knowing what you see that I did not describe in that last post! I have not yet tried the suggestions you gave. I am more comfortable with thoughts working in MU4 only, and not in terminal which I think would effect much more. I have to wonder why you did not mention these first, to try, instead of the IQ etc.? I also looked through the handbooks, both MU3 & 4. As best I could find, there is nothing about these options. I would have tried them if I had known. So, I hope you see what I see, or try to see, in the screenshot. I will be trying the edit fonts options you gave and hoping they do something profound. Thanks for the continued thoughts!

Attachment Size
Screenshot 2023-06-07 9.32.48 AM.png 176.37 KB

In reply to by R. L. F.

Thanks for the screenshot. It allowed me to see the relative sizes of everything - menus. palette titles, palette contents, toolbars, and score itself. So I can see exactly how big everything is relative to everything else.

Based on that, the environment variable method really is best - other methods will only affect some sizes but not others, or will affect them out of proportion to each other. But the specific way I suggested would also affect MuseScore 3, and apparently on your system that is not affected (on my Chromebooks, both MU3 and MU4 need this adjustment).

Luckily, it's also possible to set environment variables only for specific apps. In fact, I have what is maybe the best solution - it's what I actually do. I wrote a small program to fix the scale for MuseScore 4 only. The only downside of this solution is you need to re-run the program after every update, but it's very simple.

Download the attached file to your Linux files. Then close MuseScore 4 if it is currently open, and type the following into a terminal:

. fix-scale

(that's a period then a space then fix-scale)

Now start MuseScore 4 and things should be better. This will work great if your particular Chromebook is similar to mine in terms of its resolution. If the result is too big, or still not big enough, I can give further info.

In reply to by Marc Sabatella

Thanks! Glad the screenshot worked. Honestly I am still concerned about anything into terminal and unintended results. I will look at your app to see. I used your suggestions from previous post. The edit preferences font size helped about 80%. It kept the top menu (file, edit, view, etc.) as is and the drop down menu fonts in pallette and elsewhere are the same, tiny. Advanced pallette scale did nothing. I only enlarged to 4 so I will try even larger, if I am supposed to go larger?
I happened to see a couple of your MSCafe programs last week. One had the Beethoven piano work you were talking about base line(that's an 'Alberti' base line, if it matters. Mozart I remember, as well as others in mid to late classical period used that broken chord style.) The other program was the 'chord symbols'. At one point you were talking about less/more stretch for measures. When you showed numbers for increasing you said '1' was the base size. That was my hint/tip from that program. (they nearly always have something that way, good job) This IS what I am missing when doing things in terminal. Where am I going and how do I get back if things are not what's expected. And yes, MU3 fonts are a very readable size. So, it comes down to my feeling comfortable with changes I can make and easily see what I need to go back to, for any reason.(such as pallette scale adjustments) Thanks again for the suggestions.

In reply to by R. L. F.

Yes, itś true that font size setting doesn't affect menu sizes, because those are supposed to be controlled by the OS. The paletteScale takes effect only on restart. I think you'll find 4 is way too large, probably 1.5 or 2 would be more appropriate.

I can tell you that what that program I posted does is very simple, it affects one file and one file only:


This is the file that controls how MuseScore gets started when clicking the icon on the shelf. My program edits that file to add some addition settings. You can actually try out those settings manually without running the program. Just close MuseScore 4, then copy and paste this into a terminal window and hit Enter:

GDK_DPI_SCALE=1.33 QT_SCALE_FACTOR=1.33 sommelier -X --dpi=166 mscore4portable

This won't change anything on your system, it just opens MuseScore with some specific options that are designed to scale everything to be the way it is meant to be. It works well on my system but those specific values of 1.33 and 166 might need adjustment.

One of the reasons I wanted to see your screenshot was to gauge if the score itself was also too small. When you view it at 100% zoom (press Ctrl+0 to make sure you're at 100%), is it physically the same size on screen as a piece of paper? It looks like not, and that's what the command above actually fixes. But if the score itself is actually the right size when viewed at 100%, then a simpler command should do the job:

QT_SCALE_FACTOR=1.33 mscore4portable

Again, for both of these commands, running them makes no changes to your system whatsoever. If you close MuseScore and then open it from the program icon, you'll everything is exactly as it was. So there is nothing you'd need to reset afterwards.

But if you like the results from running the first command I gave here (the longer one starting with GDK_DPI_SCALE), then the fix-scale program I posted earlier will make that change more permanently - at least up until the next MuseScore update, when you'll need to run the fix-scale program again. If on the other hand you like the results from the second command better, I could make a different version of the fix-scale program to do that instead.

These sort of scaling problems are not common - certainly nowhere near as common as in MU3 - but they do happen often enough that I am trying to learn how I can make this fix-scale program more useful to more people. Ideally of course all operating systems would always communicate all resolution info correctly, but right now, Linux on Chromebook does not, so most Linux apps have this issue.

In reply to by Marc Sabatella

Quick note. Will not be trying anything for a while. Opened MU4 today, went to try pallette scale further. V11Opened a pallette menu item for reference. The dropdowns were messed or blank, went to view, opened and touched master pallette and poof...closed down. This is back where the problems started. The only things I have done since factory reset was the edit preferences font size and advanced pallette scale where nothing seemed to change, anyway. I did notice pallette scale was set at zero, not one. I do not remember leaving it that way, but not sure.
I did factory reset again, then edit preferences font size to 18 pt. and closed out. Will see what happens tomorrow. This is further reason I do not want to risk anything with MU3. I do not have confidence in MU4, yet! I do want to reiterate when it shuts down it is not a normal crash, as in 2 or 3, just closes out.
So will be seeing what goes on from here. Whether it did not like pallette scale left on zero, or just does not like any changes. Let you know in a few days. Just saw you made further comments, but have not even looked, yet.

In reply to by R. L. F.

Yes, if paletteScale accidentally gets set to 0, bad things happen. There's a reason the this setting is buried in ":advanced", and why I was encouraging you to use the other approaches - that option is experimental, and has never worked very reliably. The methods I described in the previous post will work better and cause no problems.

Again, absolutely nothing I have recommended here will affect MU3. It's physically impossible.

In reply to by Marc Sabatella

Another crazy update. Sorry, still have not tried your terminal things. You said 4 on pallette scale would be too big so I went back and tried 3. Thought that would tell me if it was doing anything. Closed out MU4 and shut down for a restart. When I got back in things looked small again. Checked pallette menu...messed up again. When I went into check pallette scale it was zero, again. Then I thought maybe I forgot to check OK button. (sounds like me, but not sure) Reset factory, back in to edit preferences, pallette scale to 3 again, this time sure I click OK. Shut down system, again. Opened MU4, things looked odd, tiny, checked pallette menu item...messed again! Went in to advanced to check pallette scale and it was set at 'zero'. MU4 did it on its own. (as I now think that first time I tried) No, still do not trust Mu4!
For my info, I do not have MU4 on shelf. I could not get both to work, if both were on the shelf. Have not tried again. Tooo big a hassle! 4 is on the all apps page though...will your app still work if it's there. Did you say one of the options (./fixscale) needed to be done again if MU4 is shut down? Afraid that's my nightly procedure.
Thanks for the efforts on all this. Hope it is informing you on some actions of the program.

In reply to by R. L. F.

As Insaid, this option is experimental, just as it was n MU3. I don’t recommend using it. No reason to avoid MU4 entirely though just because an experimental option has never worked well!

Again, the method I described should work. You could save yourself an awful lot of time and effort by trying it. Would have been far simpler and far more effective than all that playing around with experimental settings.

In reply to by Marc Sabatella

Perspective!! I will always choose clicking up/down arrows any day as less experimental. I know you are talking about the programs, but for me putting something in terminal is Always more experimental, as follows.
I did not want to send a screenshot, because I told you where the problems were and did not want you making assumptions. You did, for the score window. I know it probably looks small. I use it that way much of the time. It is far better for scoring. For me scoring is just up/down side to side and small makes for less of that motion. I raise to 150% if just entering an instrumental line. Works fine and anything I use in the score window can be easily changed in size. And it is much easier to make things larger than smaller with the percentage menu. So I guessed from your apps that the QT version was the better choice. Opened terminal typed in your code(I have no luck with copy/paste from/into terminal) hit enter and.....nothing. First muscore4: command not found. Tried Muscore4: command not found. Finally guessed a good spelling for MuseScore4portable and then QT_SCALE: command not found.(all preceded by -bash)
So, as I said, perspective. As you mentioned about linux in chrome, I have felt many things in terminal are problematic. Hope this gives you further understanding for your apps. Thanks as always.

In reply to by R. L. F.

It's not about perspective it's about simple facts. That option is experimental, meaning, it isn't documented, and the code that implements it hasn't been tested much and is known to fail in some cases. It was hidden under the "advanced" tab because it is something meant to be used only by expert users who are not afraid of the consequences of using experimental features known to not work very well and to help in the further testing and development.

On the other hand, the command lines I am urging you to try are not experimental at all. These involve using well-documented, well-supported, and well-tested features that will not cause problems, period.

Anyhow, again, I'd love to help, so if you need further assistance after following the advice I've already given you, just ask.

In reply to by Marc Sabatella

I guess by telling you what I experienced I was asking for help. Please remember the only reason I tried pallette scale setting is because you mentioned it as an option. I did and learned it was the problem from the start. The download did not work because the pallette scale changed on its own. Just as it did when I tried changing and resetting to 1. Now, did you not read the the part where I tried putting your code into terminal and got nothing but command not found? I have told you what I am experiencing, hoping it might help. So, if you have no more suggestions I will just muddle along as best I can and play with my screen resolution as the only fix that works somewhat. Thanks for your thoughts. Sorry you got hooked on this 'everything' being experimental for me!

In reply to by R. L. F.

Yes, I am sorry for mentioning palette scaling, because indeed it is problematic. So, the help I have offered is to tell you not to keep trying that but instead try to the much better solutions I gave instead. Do Help / Revert to factory settings to make those settings are back where they belong.

And I apologize again, I did indeed miss the part of there being a problem executing the command. It looks like you didn't type the command exactly as I gave it. Better to use copy/paste to remove the possibility of typing errors. From the description of the errors you got, it looks like you inserted some extra spaces and also u's that should have been there. Copying and pasting that command into the terminal will work - I tested this myself.

FWIW, in the future, it's easier for us to read messages and not miss important information if you break up long text into paragraphs separated by blank line so that different thoughts don't get mixed together.

In reply to by Marc Sabatella

Not spaces, but probably misspellings. m(u)s. Whatever, it is opening and larger. THANKS!!

Just for reference for any size changes, to make things larger is it 1.4 or 1.25? Or 1 or 2? Like to have an idea which way to go.

With your answer I consider things finished. Now to learn to work with all the quirks I am finding each time I use MU4. May have to try the new sounds. The basic are not All the most appealing.

And do not feel bad about suggesting scale size, it was good to learn something else. Thanks again for helping.

In reply to by R. L. F.

Excellent! Bigger numbers will be larger indeed. But it's trial and error between the various different numbers in the different commands I gave, I'm afraid. The numbers I provided work well on my systems, which are around 13" Chromebooks (one a little smaller, one a little larger) with 1080p displays (1920x1080 native, but scaled to 1536x864 by default in ChromeOS). The settings I gave work out exactly as they are supposed, as measured by taking a ruler to the screen and comparing text sizes with other apps.

In reply to by Marc Sabatella

Marc. Sorry, thought & found a couple more things to ask while it is still fresh in my mind. My screen is 13" 2k and defaults to 1410 x 960. Things are fine with your app. You mentioned " until an update", so will this app work after an update or do you anticipate changes in the UI that might negate its need? Will it just need to be reentered? (I used your QT_SCALE.... option)

I have found that when I shut down my system for the night everything resets to tiny. I guess this might be what you expected. Just wondering if maybe I did not finish something I should have done. Thought you implied it would continue working, till an update?

Is MU 4.02 an update and worth moving to, yet? Thought mine is 4.01. Thanks for thoughts.

In reply to by R. L. F.

First things first - yes, each update is pretty important as it fixes critical bugs (crashes, corruptions, etc) in the previous one. This is especially true of 4.0.2, which was all about fixing critical issues in 4.0.1 and almost nothing else.

And yes, if you use my "fix-scale" app, you need to re-run it after each update to MuseScore. That's because it works by modifying the "desktop" file I mentioned, and that desktop file gets replaced when you update MuseScore. BTW< if you didn't know, you can update MuseScore easily by typing:

mscore4portable update

This will automatically download and install any available updates. If it asks for permission to do something, say yes.

However, you definitely shouldn't need to do this after rebooting. Are you sure you ran the fix-scale app? And then simply ran MuseScore normally (from the icon, not using the terminal)?

BTW, speaking of updates, 4.1 is expected out in a within a few weeks.

In reply to by Marc Sabatella

Marc Sorry, I did not every try the .fix app. In a more recent post you gave 2 options: GDK... and QT_SCALE... I chose the later as by your description it sounded more of what I was wanting. It does a good job. The score window fonts might be just slightly larger, also, but not too bad. When I shut down and start up it resets to tiny. It will not be terrible to start in terminal and at least having larger fonts! I was just wondering if this was what you expected from this version app? If so, as I say, that's fine.

At this point guess I will wait for 4.1 to try an update. Thanks!

In reply to by R. L. F.

It's expected it would still be tiny if you quit MuseScore and restart using the program icon. You'd have to use the terminal every single time to be able to use the other method. The whole point of the fix-scale app is that you run it once and it's done, no more messing with command lines until the next update.

In reply to by Marc Sabatella

I was actually pointing out that using 1.36 did nothing to change Any font sizes, but going back to 1.33 did make them larger again. (2nd post) I will look further into .fix... next week. My concern was thinking you said it would effect the score window also. And as I have said, I am fine with it now. It can always be increased with the percentage window. I was also concerned how to get things back from .fix if I am not satisfied.

Right now I will be satisfied with QT_SCALE... Loading in from terminal is no problem as I have already memorized the code line. Or I can just reduce the resolution of my screen in display and then reduce score window by the 30% increased. I may wait for 4.1 update you said was coming! Thanks as always.

In reply to by R. L. F.

1.36 definitely should have worked too, it’s possible you had another typo though.

It’s meant that 100% view should be actual size, so it would be good to use the fix that does that. Even if you don’t always want to view it that large, you can always set the initial zoom to something smaller in preferences. But it’s not crucial either.

If you find the exact command line that gives you what you want, I can edit the the fix-scale app to do that. It would otherwise work the same as what I described - modifying the desktop file so the changes apply when starting from the icon as well.

In reply to by Marc Sabatella

I am just, for now, going to use your QT_SCALE... app you offered. It gives me a chance to try different sizes to see what I like. If a new version, 4.1, is coming soon I will see what that brings for font/pallette sizes. Then I may be whining again. I may be digging out this old thread to contact you. Thanks again!

In reply to by R. L. F.

I am coming to you again! I am getting the update notices from MU 4.02. Does 4.1 do anything about the font sizes being so tiny? If not will your QT_SCALE app still work the same with 4.1. I am still satisfied using it. I find 1.5 being my choice to make most fonts acceptable. Before I update I just wanted to know this app version will still work. Thanks.

As an aside: I happened to see part of your Cafe 4.1 'issues' update yesterday. Two quick guestions , if I may. For harp, does not the harpist wish to see those coming changes ahead of there actual performance. Can the text or graph be moved? They just seemed to be showing up on or even somewhat after the occurrences. Second, you showed imploding two parts into one staff. Any option, yet, for dividing the one staff into two parts? As always thanks for any information!

In reply to by R. L. F.

The small font sizes are the result of the OS not communicating the screen resolution properly, so no update to MsueScore is likely to be able to fix that - it will need a fix to ChromeOS from Google. But the same methods I provided for overriding this work in 4.1 as in 4.0.2.

Regarding the harp diagram - you have full control over there they appear. Just select the note or rest you wish to show it on before clicking the palette item If you at first place a diagram in one location and later change your mind and wish to move it elsewhere, use cut and paste as with other markings.

To split a chord into separate notes, use Tools / Explode. This will initially explode onto separate staves, but if you wish it to be multiple voices on one staff, just implode.

In reply to by Marc Sabatella

Marc. Thanks. I hoped your app would still work! It does a great job. I guess the 'fix-it' or whatever it was called version will also still work? I may try it as I continue to lean towards MU4.x, even with it's supper-duper sensitivity, it offers much!

As usual I guess I was not totally clear on my question about splitting parts(not chords) from one stave. Instead of combining two flutes onto one staff, I still want to divide two flutes on one staff into pt. 1 and pt. 2 for performance. I apparently work opposite to what everyone else does.

Great on the harp options. I thought from what you were showing on your Cafe video that it was auto aligning under the red notes. Good to know.

I finally saw the last part of your 4.1 issues update. The baroque trill question was very interesting.( I am sure by now you have heard all this) He is understanding/remembering things part correctly. Baroque trills are normally(?) started on the aux note, so technically they do go down, just not from the base note. The comment to just add a grace note is a possibility depending on which version of grace note chosen. You then get into the question of whether trills start on the beat or before? So, adding some option for a trill starting above would be appropriate for true performance practice, if playback really needs to be that accurate!
Isn't a thousand years of music fun to interpret?!! Thanks as always for the help and guidance.

In reply to by R. L. F.

Yes, the fix-scale script should do work the same as before. I ran it again myself after the update on both of my Chromebooks and it did exactly what it should.

I'm still not totally clear on what you're asking about parts, but you can certainly have two flutes on one staff for the score but still have separate parts for them. See

And yes, it occurred to me after the Café that he was probably thinking of the start note being the main note vs the upper note. There's long been a Baroque option but it never actually worked so it was temporarily removed. Some day more customization, including to things like speed, will probably happen.

In reply to by Marc Sabatella

Even though I was not explaining well, you figured out what I was wanting! I think? I will have to try what the handbook is saying, if I understand what it says. And figure out how it wants it done? Thanks. This gives me a place to start when I get that far with the score I am working on now. Again, I may come back whining, What does this mean?
I am still going to use QT_SCALE for now, but good to know about your fix-scale also. As I remember you said something about MU4 being on shelf? Is it OK if the icon is just on the all apps page? Before, I had problems with having both MU3& 4 on the shelf and neither working(loading). So, I still have not tried to install 4 on the shelf. But since I am starting from terminal it has not made any difference. Thanks again for the guidance!

In reply to by R. L. F.

Pinning an app on the shelf is totally up to you and works the same for any app on Chromebook. You do that by right-clicking an icon for a program - you do that for by right-clicking the icon on the shelf while it is running then choose the Pin option. I find it much more convenient for the apps I use most often. But, that will work only for apps that are running from their icons in the first place, not for apps run from the terminal. It will pin the icon, but it will start the app the normal way not using the special terminal command. So that's why I much prefer actually modifying the ".desktop" file via the fix-scale script - then it works from the launcher or the shelf.

In reply to by Marc Sabatella

I did pin MU4 to the shelf, after removing MU3.62 (?). In a previous post, you gave me a version of 'fix_scale'(I think) to test how things looked. It was GDK...1.5 QT...1.5 etc -- dpi 166. I did use this to look. (I changed the numbers to 1.5 if that might have made a difference, its the size I use in the QT_SCALE app)
All appears fine except the mouse pointer is about 8-10 times tooo large, in the score window espically! Everywhere in the window for the score. In the pallette window it is large in blk spaces and below the menu items in the blk space. Instruments pallette fine except for very small space above 'Add' menu bar. Prop menu it is large in the blk spaces to the side and below menu items.
In the Home window, new & recent scores it is large in the blank spaces. Fine any words in menus, in selecting scores and large again in spaces around these things. I know I over did the explanation, but in case it helps you in any way, I wanted to give as best as I could.

I am hoping with this info you can suggest a change of the numbers to get ,just, the pointer back to standard size, in the score window.

In reply to by R. L. F.

Sorry to hear that didn't work. FWIW, on my system the mouse pointer actually ends up slightly smaller than normal, but only slightly. To be honest, I actually found the values that worked for me through trial and error more than any real understanding. I mean, I have a basic familiarity with what those are, but they might as well be in degrees Kelvin for all I know about what they mean specifically.

What I can suggest is to do your experimenting on the command line using the line from the script that I think is what you are referring to. Use just this part:

GDK_DPI_SCALE=1.33 QT_SCALE_FACTOR=1.33 sommelier -X --dpi=166 mscore4portable

what I recall from my own experimentation is that there seems to be a sort of inverse relationship between the first two numbers compared to the third. That is, bigger values for 166 needed to be balanced by smaller values for 1.33 to keep things in scale, and vice versa. The 166 is the number that has actual meaning to me - it's the actual resolution of my screen, measured in dots per inch (DPI).

Aside from experimenting with this, since you mention being happy with just setting QT_SCALE_FACTOR, the other option here is to skip the fix-scale business and instead go with another approach I mentioned earlier, in Basically, you'd be adding a file to your system that tells all Qt-based apps (of which probably MuseScore and Muse Hub are the only ones you are using) to use this scale factor. After running the command I mention to copying that file to the location it needs to be, you'd then restart Linux (right-click the terminal icon, choose "Shut down Linux", then start the terminal again or just run MuseScore from its icon.

The advantage if this would be, it would remain in place even through further updates, so no need to mess with re-running fix-scale. And like the fix-scale method, it would work from the icon, including when pinned to the shelf. The downside for me is that it leaves the score itself too, but since you said you're happy with that, maybe that's the best way for you to go.

You'd need to undo what fix-scale did though, if you've already run that. If you've only experimented in the terminal though, you should be good. Easiest way to undo what fix-scale did is just re-download and re-install 4.1.

In reply to by Marc Sabatella

The GDK_SCALE is the script I was using for the testing. I Really appreciate your offering that to check first. If it were not for the giant mouse pointer, the rest was fine. And even, as I hoped, you might have a suggestion for which number(s) would only effect the score window mouse, I would have lived with the growing/shrinking pointer as I moved around the menus. I just think from reading your text that I will be safer just using your QT_SCALE app.(I am sure MU & Musehub would be the only QT apps, though I had to delete musehub because it was overwhelming my system. Fan never runs, but with MH it was on All the time) It is more bothersome starting from terminal all the time, but still OK.

Heads up! I am submitting a fault with MU4 unless you tell me this is normal for 4. Open a score with multiple pages, go to one of the latter, 5 or 6 would be fine. Click on a blank part of page to make sure 4 knows you are there. Click the up or down arrow on your keyboard and see where you go? This only happens if something is not highlighted. Maybe this has already been reported? Thanks for the help as always.

In reply to by R. L. F.

If nothing is selected, then neither the Up nor Down key have any supported function at all, so there is nothing in particular expect to see happen. Currently, with nothing selected, these keys will attempt to resume navigation from whoever the last selection was, since that is the most useful behavior in many cases.

In reply to by Marc Sabatella

Sounds logical. Not what I am having happen, unless you are saying it will throw you back to page one of the score as navigation. In a large score when you are working in the 70's and suddenly find yourself at page 1, it is frustrating at the least. So, I am guessing you did not have this happen as I described? And no, this was not in just one score!
Oh well, if you did not have this issue then I guess it is just another bizarre quirk of MU4 on My system. I still may submit to see if anyone else is experiencing this, similarly. Thanks

In reply to by R. L. F.

Again, to be clear: there is nothing in particular that is meant to happen at all if you press a cursor key with nothing selected. So it's not clear why you'd be doing that at all. But, indeed, you're right, it doesn't seem to reuse the last-selected element for those specific commands - only for the accessibility commands Alt+Left/Right. Probably it should do the same for the others, so feel free to open an issue on GitHub to request that. But again, you shouldn't be doing this normally in the first place.

In reply to by Marc Sabatella

Yes, this is probably something few use, (you have alluded in the past a vast majority type in their scores) so I am sure it would be low priority fix. I on the other hand do use up/down arrows, often. One is personal preference. No matter what the engravers say I do not like all the rests in some scores. In a contrapuntal keyboard work with 4 independent parts, two right & two left, and a rest on the last beat of a measure...there is no reason to see 4 rests. No player needs that. I understand why it is necessary, now, but in old scores I have that is not how it was done. And it looks far less busy! Same for a large orch score. There is no need for multiple dozens of rests for a last beat rest. Any conductor knows it is a rest and does not need two or more rests each staff to understand!
Another that I use often is when I may copy/paste a line or section and want to change that flat to a sharp, or opposite. Or similar a note needs to be raised or lowered a step or step and a half. The problem(s) show up when you are a billionth of a mm from highlighting what you think you hit and suddenly you are at page one, when you were somewhere in the 70s or 80s. Not Fun! Or just as often with 2 or 3 clicks up/down, MU4 just decides NO, just 1 click and the 2nd sends you back to page 1! Often Yes...always No.
I am sure there are multiple keystrokes for doing the same things, but that is not how I work. So, Marc you may think I should not be using this, but I do and often.
Thanks for at least checking so I know it was not just something with my system, though I assumed not since the same things happened in 4.02.

In reply to by R. L. F.

I use up/down arrows all the time too - to change pitch of selected notes, or to manually adjust the position of something. But that requires something to be selected. What I am not understanding is why you'd press those keys with nothing selected. It has never done anything whatsoever, so why press those keys in that case?

As for rests in multiple voice music, indeed, not all need to be shown. So that is why can simply press "V" to hide any that your own expertise tells you won't confuse the people reading your score. Not sure how that relates to this discussion though? How does hiding a rest realte to pressing up/down with nothing at all selected?

BTW, though - MuseScore will automatically merge matching rests where musically possible. In the staff/part properties, just click that option. It's a staff/part property because there are often cases where some staves should show them (because they are truly independent parts) and others need not.

In reply to by Marc Sabatella

Sorry, Marc. I never assumed anyone would think I was trying to move nothing. It was the easiest way to show what happens, though. As I said in the last post, if you just miss by a billionth of a mm selecting what you thought you selected(a rest) or as happens many times (to me) in MU4, the program just decides that one click is all you get and then it deselects whatever and back to page one you go. Or as I am sure I will do sometime is accidentally touch the up or down arrow keys. Anyway I was not trying to move nothing!
I will try the suggestions for combining the rest, that will save much effort, I hope. Guess I naturally missed that in the handbook. Thanks

In reply to by R. L. F.

If you find yourself often misclicking, you can increase the proximity setting in Edit / Preferences / Canvas.

But indeed, it would be nice is Up/Down were to either do nothing or perhaps something more reasonable like select something in the current page (similar to what happens when pressing "N" with nothing selected). Or, something I've long though, maybe it should function like PgUp/PgDn to move the canvas, but in a smaller increment.

Feel free to start a new thread with a more descriptive title - like "What should happens when pressing cursor keys with nothing selected" to see if a discussion results in a consensus. And then someone can open an issue to make the request.

In reply to by Marc Sabatella

Thanks for the proximity info I am trying it to see what other things might be effected also. Nothing yet!
I started the thread for options for cursor keys with nothing selected, as you know. Unfortunately, at the moment we are the only ones commenting! :), :(

You gave me the hint of V for multiple rests in a staff that could be combined. Since it just makes one invisible, when finally pulling parts is there an easy function for making all visible again. Without having to go through the part and highlighting all that need to be changed? If not, I am not sure it is worth the effort. Putting them together in the score will probably be the less bothersome, as long as MU4 gives me '2' clicks and not return me to page 1 after one click. Thanks as always

In reply to by R. L. F.

In cases where you want independent control of visibility for score vs parts, I recommend not fiddling with visibility until after generating the parts. Then you can do what you like in the score and the parts won't be affected. But for parts that aren't generated until later, simply select all (Ctrl+A) then check the Visible box in the Properties panel to start with a clean slate of everything visible. But t no time during this process should you pressing Up, so no need to worry about accidentally going back to page one.

If you need further help with managing rests, please open a new thread and give it a nice descriptive title like like "Help me manage rests with multiple voices and parts", and attach your score and describe the problem as specifically as possible. Then we can understand and assist better.

In reply to by Marc Sabatella

Tried using V for hiding a rest, but since I need to select one anyway I just feel I am part way to two clicks for overlaying both rests. Then nothing need to be done later to make some visible again. I would like to try the merge matching rests you mentioned. It sounds more acceptable. As much as I have searched I can not find anything staff/part. I am sure I am looking right at it, but nothing. Where do I start?

Sorry, unrelated. I am trying to upgrade to 4.1.1. I have it downloaded, I know. Does it not just overlay onto 4.1 automatically? Do I need to do .....appimage install, or something? When opening does it show as 4.1.1 or still just 4.1 on opening screen? Very confusing! I use your QT_SCALE... to open and get larger font sizes. I still assume it functions the same? It works great, though about every 4 or 5 times it just does not increase the sizes. By this time of using, I know I am keying it in correctly. It opens the program! Still small font sizes, though. Just have to rekey and everything is fine. Just thought I would mention it in case it would imply something to you. It is no big bother, just odd. Thanks as always.

Guess there was no great interest for what to do with cursor keys when nothing is selected. Only one comment.

In reply to by R. L. F.

First, there shouldn't be a need to click anything - just press "V" immediately after entering the rest while it is still selected. But if for whatever reason you forget or change your mind later, then indeed, you can click it then press "V". Still much simpler and much safer than using the cursor keys. Quicker in that it's only two actions instead of potentially half a dozen or more, safer in that it continues to work even if the score layout changes and that manual adjustment no longer produces the right effect, also safer in that there is no danger of the second moving because you pressed Up/Down with nothing selected.

To find the merge match rests option, right-click the staff, choose Staf/Part properties, and click the checkbox you'll find in the resulting dialog.

On Linux systems - including Chromebooks - you don't need need to download updates manually. Just type "mscore4portable update" into a terminal window. It automatically downloads and installs the update. But also, if you have extra time on your hands, it does work to simply download and install it exactly the same way you did 4.0.

And yes, QT_SCALE_FACTOR works the same in all 4.x versions. If you ever find it not working, probably there was a typo in the command even if you checked - it's possible to make mistakes. That's one reason why I recommend not messing with that and just modifying the desktop file as I mentioned. That makes it more mistake-proof and also allows you to open from the icon.

As for the other thread, it's only been a couple of days. Give it time.

In reply to by Marc Sabatella

As far a V, it is 6 of one, half dozen of the other.(maybe literally) You still need to change things back to visible, sometime ....and as you say 'mistakes can happen'. :) I am very good at that! I am now going to try the merge option, that really sounds like what I am looking for.

You had mentioned the update option before and I thought that is what I did. Maybe I just clicked the button in the pop-up window, though do not remember. Now I just need to remind myself how to install. Think I do.

I do know about typos, but I also have experienced them with this option. The program Will Not Load! And it does, so I am sure there were none when this happens. As I said by now I know what I am typing as well as checking before I push enter. So I am 99+% sure it was correct, before enter. Just thought you might be interested.

Seems like the other thread is more like 10 days, but since none of it will effect what I do , I just find it interesting! Thanks as always, Marc.

In reply to by R. L. F.

It's not six of one, half dozen of the other - it's literally up to six of one versus always only one of the other. Literally, it's a fraction of the number of keystrokes to mark a rest invisible as to attempt to move it into position, and as mentioned, it's also more reliable since again, manual adjustments might fail if the score layout changes. Not sure what you mean about needing to change things back to visible, but of course if for whatever reason you ever change your mind and wish to do that, it's still only one keystroke to make it visible again.

Definitely it's a bad idea in virtually all respects to move rests manually to force them to overlap. Don't do that. Use the merge matching rests options on the staves where this makes sense to do globally for all such rests (eg, choral music), use "V" for staves where you need to sometimes merge but sometimes not (polyphonic keyboard music).

In reply to by Marc Sabatella

Now that you showed me how to find merge matching, that will be all I use. It is still better than V, because you only click on the measure. As I have said in the past, MU4.1 was super- duper sensitive and I was always moving a rest as I highlighted it. This is the best for me.
On V when you divide the two flutes into two separate parts I assume it will be necessary to make many rests visible again! This is what I was meaning.(extra key strokes) Of course, this is only me, because of how I prefer my scores to look.

I got 4.1.1 loaded, so I will begin in see if it is as sensitive, but still 'merge' will be my method now.
Thanks for the guidance!

In reply to by R. L. F.

Sorry to follow-up my own reply. Lost the exact thread. I enjoy merge, think it is great, but I do not think it is functioning correctly. Should the merge check in the box disappear after each apply , OK? It does not for me and it is sending me around and around, besides the highlighted measure sometimes nearly refuses to let go. I know 'send a score'. I will when I figure out exactly what Is happening. I also thought you were implying it was just the highlighted measure that the rests merge. If so, that is not true either. Which means some I see are merging and some I can not are unmerging. Most annoying at the moment. Hate it when I can not figure out a great feature. Just thought I would mention this to you first in case you anticipate something I am doing wrong.

In reply to by R. L. F.

The merge option is for the entire staff, not individual measures. So you simply do it once and you're done.

If you encounter issues, then yes, a new thread with adescriptive title - I can't emphasize enough how important it is to have a thread title that is useful like "Problem merging rests" vs something meaningless like "MU4 #2"! - plus a sample score and steps to reproduce the problem. otherwise it's really not worth the time to post, because we can't provide nearly as much help, and we waste a lot of time.

In reply to by Marc Sabatella

Sorry to be coming back to this, but I finally finished the movement and wanted to use 'merge' for pairing up rests. I was not sure how to do one staff, so just highlighted first meas and went through to check merge option. When I moved further into score and found a couple rests I would have wanted merged.... they were not. So, I highlighted that measure and did everything again and Yes the two rests were merged. You had implied that once took care of all the pairs of rests that needed to be merged in that part. I kept moving through the score, but then found measures where the rests were Not merged. I highlighted the measure and did the merge function and Yes they were merged! Decided to just check back a few pages to the previous 'merges' and they were 'not merged' now. Highlighted them and they merged but now the later ones were not. A game of wack a mole and the mole was winning.
The check box in the merge option does not always clear. Surprisingly, unchecking the box sometimes merges the rests in the highlighted meas? Something is not working correctly. I just know that several pages further in the score rests were not merged when I did it the first time and sometimes the check box for the merge stays checked even after the window closes. Why...I do not know and nothing happens the same all the time. Not sending score because have no idea what or how these things happen. Just thought I would mention my experiences. Still have more staves in score with measures needing merges. Will try merge function again and see if I discover anything.

I guess I will be going back to clicking the rest and cursor arrows up/down. At least I know this works. Will just have to play games with getting sent back to page one if rest becomes unhighlighted.

In reply to by R. L. F.

The merge option has nothing at all to do with what is selected or not selected - it's a staff property (hence the name of the dialog).

Moving rests individually will not work in general - as explained previously, it's going to cause problems as soon as anything changes about the layout of your score that makes those manual adjustments inappropriate. Making them invisible is much simpler and much safer.

As always if you attach the score you are having trouble with and give precise steps to reproduce the problem, we can understand and assist better.

In reply to by Marc Sabatella

You really have me confused now. If I do not select something how do I get to the 'merge' option? And if you are implying the whole part/instrument rests are merged at one click....wrong. As I said in my comment to jm6stringer it inconsistently merged some rests and not others. No rhyme or reason as I worked through the score.
As for a score there is none as it is all corrected. And instead of waiting and then having to step through a movement looking for missed ones, I am just going back to highlighting and cursor arrows up/down. Even with the occasional toss back to measure 1 when the highlight gets dropped after one click. At least I know they are done. And Marc I have been doing it this way for years with no further problems occurring.

As for making invisible, honestly I do not trust something again not functioning correctly and only finding out later, then needing to go through a movement to check All! Thanks as always

In reply to by R. L. F.

As I said, the merge option has nothing to do with selections, nor do any of the other options in that sidiualog. They all apply to the staff as a whole.

Also as explained previously, i you are concerned about something not functioning correctly and only finding out later, then absolutely positively do not report to moving rests manually, which is pretty much guaranteed to fail when the score layout changes. Whereas never ever had there been a single vase of making something invisible failing.

In reply to by Marc Sabatella

Sorry Marc, you still have me confused.
When you first mentioned the feature you said right click an open place in the measure. Then chose the part/staff then check the merge rests. I sort of understood it would merge All like rests of the parts throughout that staff. I did did Not merge all like rests. From there no way to go further without doing each measure/rest combination one at a time. And I know of no other way but manually. You suggested this thread, so I tried it.
You must change your score layout more than I ever have, because as I said I have not had any problems with manual adjustments of like rests....Yet!
How many cases of merge failure have there ever been....before? Unless something else pops up I am carrying on as usual.
Thanks for the thoughts/help

In reply to by R. L. F.

Yes, right-clicking somewhere within a measure is always how you access the staff/part properties dialog. Any option you enable in this dialog - merge matching rests, invisible staff lines, show barlines, etc - applies to the entire staff.

By score changing layout, I mean, every time there is an update to MsueScore that changes anything about score layout, manual, adjustments become potentially broken because they may be based on different defaults. Do all that extra work at your own risk. The much sim;pler ways I am describing are also much safer.

Not sure which score you mean when you say it did not merge all matching rests, so again, please I cannot possibly stress strong enough how vital it is to attach a score when you are wanting help with a problem. So please, if you want to others to spend time helping you, please do them the courtesy of starting a new thread with a meaningful title (like "Problem with merge matching rests") and attach your score and steps to reproduce the problem. I cannot possibly emphasize enough how vital this is.

In reply to by Marc Sabatella

I titled the thread because I did not know that there is a problem. I was hoping to have that confirmed by someone responding that They had tried a similar score and got the same results. I know it did not function on my score. Not much help to have that confirmed on my score. I was also thinking I might get some other options of things others had tried. I assumed not...but was hoping.

As for a score I will repeat what I said above and in response to every request. There is No Score with problems. I corrected all the like rests by going through the score front to back.

From my point of view it would sure help if people read the post before asking for something I already said was not available. It is very frustrating on this end. I explained everything of what I did, if someone really wanted to check! They apparently do not. Thanks for the comment

In reply to by R. L. F.

This thread is called "Problems Mu4 #2" and the original post has absolutely nothing to do with the merge match rests option. There are now 84 replies in this thread, most of which have nothing to do with merging matching rests either. So it's impossible for ordinary volunteers like myself to memorize everything written in each and every one of those 84 replies over the course of the past three months, or to re-readed all 84 replies before each every new comment. That is why it is so vital to create threads with meaningful titles and keep them limited to a single topic. So, thanks for the new thread; I will followup there.

In reply to by Marc Sabatella

Sorry Marc
You are exactly right. I forget I sent to you as an attachment to what we were discussing before. You suggested I do a post on merging and I did. I have been getting comments from that and just forget how I contacted you. My apologies. If there are 84 from that previous thread I guess I have not gotten a lot of posts.

You should most likely forget all I said to you. I just did not get merge to consistently work in the score and will no longer use it. End of story. Thanks as always and again my apologies.

In reply to by Marc Sabatella

So Marc, what is there to learn to use this function? Is there really something beyond highlighting the part/staff you wish to merge like rests going in and clhecking the 'merge' box ,then apply, then OK?

If anyone truly wishes to help, I would enjoy hearing about their doing this on a larger orch score with rests they had not merged. How long would it take to open a score and chose any staff with two instruments? But, I guess most break all their scores into separate one to a part scores. Guess we will never know. Thanks

In reply to by R. L. F.

As explained, in order for us to understand and assist, we need you to attach your score and give precise steps to reproduce the problem you are encountering. Please do the volunteers who are donating countless thousands of hours helping people in this forum the simple courtesy of providing the information they request.

In reply to by Marc Sabatella

Sorry I did not respond much sooner, I was furious and did not wish to respond. If I actually thought help might be coming I would send a score. I finally did. What A Waste! I asked multiple times what he expected to accomplish? He never did respond to that simple question. He had an agenda and finishing that was all important. And if he had told me what, he knew I would never send anything. He got to fulfill his agenda. It helped nothing on my end, so it was a waste of my time and efforts. I will not again ask any questions that require more than a response.(such as how to do something) If I run into any quirk I will just live with it, as I have been doing with several things for multiple versions.( years)

I have gotten much help and guidance from you, Marc. And I greatly appreciate all you have done. Admittedly, I have gotten some interesting comments and suggestions to some of my queries. But, it does not negate the hounding for 'send a score', with no response except needing(wanting) to look. Thanks again for your many helpful suggestions and info, just this year! No need to respond, I have finally forgotten and moved on.

In reply to by R. L. F.

I'm sorry you are feeling frustrated! I had asked you to open a new thread with a descriptive title relevant to the specific problem you were experiencing, and to attach the score to that post, and to give precise steps to reproduce the problem you are experiencing. I don't see that this has happened, so no surprise we unfortunately have not been able to solve the problem for you yet.

Again, I cannot possibly stress this enough - if you want help, please, start a new thread, and give that thread a descriptive title, and attach the score and give precise steps to illustrate the problem, and o this (in the post itself*, not buried dozens of comments later. This isn't"hounding" - it's simply telling you how to receive help. We cannot help without this information. It's up to you if you want the help or not, so if you don't want the help, you don't need to do anything. if you do want the help, that's how to get it. Simple as that,

So again, should you ever decide you wish to receive our free assistance, just do as I ask and start the new thread with the clear descriptive title and the attached score and the precise steps to reproduce the problem. As always, we stand by ready to assist.

In reply to by Marc Sabatella

I have said how I will proceed.

I did send info of what happened. I am sorry it is difficult to read through the post, fully. I am sure you have many to deal with. I knew how the process went. You had already explained it. My post was saying it did not work correctly for me. I was asking, from a large score, if the same things were happening with others. That does not require my score. But checking something from the other side just does not seem to be the process.

I also sent a score.(and yes it was hounding) I do vaguely recall, now, he having said something about a new thread, so I am sure that's where my post went. As I said he had his agenda. But, I repeat. I knew how the process was supposed to happen. I was just looking for a simple confirmation , one way or another, from someone else. That never happened.

So, as I said, I appreciate the comments and suggestions on how to proceed or make something work. Your QT_SCALE.... has made it possible to just work with 4.1. Otherwise I would be trying to hold a magnifying glass while working. So from now on to borrow and paraphrase the Raven--- sending a score...."never more"!

Thanks as always

In reply to by R. L. F.

I don't understand what you mean about being "sensitive", but feel free to open a new thread with a more descriptive title, a sample score, and precise steps to reproduce the problem. Then we can understand and assist better.

As I said, for invisible rests, it's very simply to make them all visible again in the parts - takes only seconds even for a 100-page score, because you can easily select all rests at once. But the merge option is also useful.

In reply to by Marc Sabatella

I think I am going to prefer the merge option from now on, so it will not be necessary to make things visible.

As for sensitive, I can only give some examples of what I experience. Such as clicking a cursor arrow up to add a sharp and hear multiple notes sound, only to look up and see the same note also with natural sign. And sometimes while quickly moving the mouse pointer out of the way I hear another sound and now have a note somewhere else on the score. (could even be the next page completely out of my sight) And before you say it, NO, I do not have my finger on the mouse button. I learned that lesson back in MU3. So it is click and release as quickly as possible!
Or... pushing the 'N' key to turn off notation to maybe use mouse to move something and the last highlighted note suddenly becomes a chord with the addition of a note some interval above.
Or... just stopping for 2 or 3 seconds while thinking and suddenly getting a note or two or three sounding, as I move the mouse again.(this is another reason for clicking N key often to stop any chances of more unwanted notes being added!)
These are just a few things that happen often enough to remember easily. And NO they do not occur all the time or with any same action. Just when the program decides to do so. After multiple years of this I am used to the occurrences. They have just become more often with time and new versions.
These are some of the reasons I call the program(4.1.1 now) super-duper sensitive.

In reply to by R. L. F.

You wrote:
(this is another reason for clicking N key often to stop any chances of more unwanted notes being added.)

Be aware...
Clicking the N key often, provides no assurance that you are no longer in note entry mode. It is an on/off toggle. If you do not pay attention, you may be clicking N often and (sometimes) actually activating note entry, resulting in "unwanted notes being added".

In reply to by R. L. F.

Clicking a cursor arrow up to add a sharp only to look up and see the same note with a natural sign means that either the key signature, or a prior accidental in the same measure, is making the note flat (and showing no courtesy accidental). Raising such a note a half step will correctly add a natural, not a sharp.

In reply to by Jm6stringer

I am responding to both of your comments here. As I tried to mention in my last post, I have been dealing with these issues for some time. I am aware of clicking N to enter and exit note entry. So, no not knowing where I am is not the problem of errant notes showing in the score. Or a two note chord to form when I push N to exit note entry.

As for clicking cursor keys and getting multiple notes suddenly sounding has nothing to do with key signatures. I use none. I place all accidentals in the score myself. With ever changing accidentals in a score, I have found it much more convenient for me and the performers to have them written down. So, this also has nothing to do with multiple notes suddenly being entered by just clicking a cursor key up or down for an accidental. And I click in my courtesy naturals myself, just to know they are where I feel necessary to assist a performer.
Thanks for the thoughts, though

In reply to by R. L. F.

If you can post a sample score and precise steps to reproduce the problem - or even just a video so we can see what you mean - please do do, so we can understand and assist better. All I can do is point out that there have been literally no changes to any of this, except for one, an important improvement: dragging a note with the mouse will no longer accidentally cause it to shift physical position without actually changing pitch as would sometimes happen in MU3. So it's actually become deliberately less sensitive in that respect. but aside from that, every single action should work exactly as before.

Could be, though, that your mouse is starting to fail

In reply to by Marc Sabatella

New mouse! But it was/has been with any mouse that I have used. A score is simply a waste of time. As I said it does not happen every time I click one of the keys. And trying to tell what was happening beyond just clicking one of these keys would be a waste of time. It happens when it does and works fine other times. I was simply trying to respond to your question about my 'sensitive' comment. It happens when it does and I have never noticed anything special that just happened previous to the event.
I guess I never noticed problems with moving a note, just rests. Guess I was lucky there. Thanks

In reply to by R. L. F.

Well, I think it is now impossible to follow what is going on in this thread. That might be why you haven't gotten any confirmation about your problem from anyone. I believe that it is important to learn how to fix problems that happen. You have received (based on what little evidence people were able to understand) the best that could be given. But I think it is even more important to learn how to avoid those problems in the future. The question would then be, have you figured out why you needed to combine rests? Could that have been avoided as you wrote the score? Can you answer "yes" to these questions? if so we may have done all that is possible.

In reply to by bobjp

Yes, I know 'why' I wish to merge rests. I ,as I said in the beginning, knew how use the merge function. I was trying to get confirmation from someone else, using a large score of around 100 pages, to see if they might experience the same inconsistencies. But no, that's not how things are done. So I never needed help using the function, nor was I confused as to why I use it. I normally avoid the need for the function as I write the score. This was just suggested as a 'better' alternative! Help was not what I was ever after. Just confirmation one way or another. I, merely, pointed out inconsistencies in how the function....functioned! Those were never approached. Thanks for the thought

In reply to by R. L. F.

Hopefully, someone will come along that has the same problem you did and have a score that can be worked with. Because that's the way the inconsistencies of the function can be approached. We need a real world problem someone has so that a real solution can be found.

In reply to by Marc Sabatella

Apologies for coming this way. I have kept this in case of similar problems about QT_SCALE and newer versions of MS. I have come upon an issue that noone seems to care enough about to even respond, and I am now wondering if it does have anything to do with QT_SCALE? I know you are working with a similar system.

A couple weeks ago I upgraded 'linux container' when the pop-up was offered. Following I updated/graded my system and gained 400+ megs of storage. On a chromebook that is huge. Everything seemed to be working fine. Loaded in 4.2 with QT_SCALE through the terminal, as usual. Program works fine except one thing. Playback is now terrible. There is a tick after the note sounds. Not horrible after quarter notes, but sixteenths become useless. The program can not keep up and rhythm is thrown off at times. Sound is worthless for judging a piece. There seems to be some reverb even though reverb IS totally off.

I have since upgraded to 4.2.1 in hopes that might change things, but no. It IS only with MU 4 that is a problem. Mu3 loads in from its app icon. So I am now wondering if it might be some related problem with loading with QT_SCALE. You shared this with me because of scaling problems with my system and MU 4. (and thanks again it has worked great for that)

Any thoughts about the issue would be greatly appreciated. I have been using QT_SCALE perfectly for months now and everything 'had' been fine. Did you by chance receive the linux container upgrade?

If you have a chance to respond I would appreciate your thoughts. It is not a rush, as I am sure you are busy with your mscafe, etc. But I am wondering if there is some conflict with QT_SCALE loading.

In reply to by R. L. F.

I had no issues like this when I updated the Linux installation on my Chromebook a week or two ago, and I haven’t heard of anyone else reporting anything like this. But there is pretty much no way the UI scaling could have anything to do with playback. Please start a new thread and give it a more descriptive title like “playback issues after updating from Debian 11 to 12” or whatever.

Do be sure to also follow the advice I have elsewhere on setting your audio device sample rate. If you need further help with that be sure to mention that in the new thread you start.

In reply to by Marc Sabatella

Thanks for responding.

No I did not think it was a scaling issue, but that I was starting MU4 with QT_SCALE. MU3.2 has no such issues. By chance I had a large orch score I had started in 3. , then went on with it in 4.. It plays fine in 3, but not in 4. The only difference now, as I said, was opening 4. in terminal with QT_SCALE. Somehow that seems beyond coincidence.

I did previously open a thread with nearly the same title you suggested. Explained as best I could what was happening. Noone responded. Glad to know you also did the upgrade and with no issues. Guess this will just be another quirk with MU4 and my system, similar to the scaling issue. Makes no sense when others with same os are not having the problems. Thanks for responding.

As an aside, for one of your hints segments, how about your thoughts on what to do after you finish the last note of a piece. Printing/publishing online(not only musescore), title page, info page....whatever? I would be interested in your thoughts using MS for laying this all out, as I would think others. Thanks again!

In reply to by R. L. F.

Are you implying it plays fine in 4.2.1 without QT_SCALE_FACTOR, but only has trouble with? That would
surprise me greatly. Anyhow, I see your other post now and will respond there.

As for your question about the last note of a piece - does this relate to QT_SCALE_FACTOR, or to playback glitches, or something else? If it's about QT_SCALE_FACTOR, feel free to followup here. If it's about playback glitches, please followup instead in the other thread. if it's unrelated, then a new thread with a descriptive title and a more detailed explanation would be useful.

In reply to by Marc Sabatella

I only launch with QT_SCALE. Have not tried doing it without. I agree that would be strange.

As for 'last note'. You do short videos with helpful hints on a particular element of Musescore. I was just suggesting this as a topic that might be useful for many as to your thoughts on using MS to its fullest. Sorry for the confusion.

Do you still have an unanswered question? Please log in first to post your question.